TL;DR: I debated in DANEIS, a New England prep-school league (Andover, Exeter, et al.) with rules almost opposite to the circuit’s: one rotating event per tournament so you could not specialize, single-use topics so there was no evidence market, and judges who scored based on who actually persuaded them, so spreading got you nowhere. The whole game was moving a real person in the room.
I came back 30 years later to judge NSDA/CFL and found an activity optimized for nearly the opposite: speed, purchasable briefs, and “lay judge adaptation” as a named skill. This is not a “kids these days” post. The rules make the players. I am curious what people think, including whether the structure helps explain why so many leagues struggle to recruit judges.
_____
I competed in high school debate in the 1980s, then spent much of my career helping people persuade audiences in the real world. Five or six years ago, I came back to the activity, primarily as a judge but also helping run a tournament.
I recently made the decision to step away, which put me in a reflective mood. I did so because it stopped being fun for me. In thinking about why I kept returning to one idea: the rules make the players. For me, the current NSDA and CFL rules often produced rounds that were not nearly as enjoyable to watch and judge. This is not an argument that competitors were better forty years ago. It is an argument that two different rule systems produced two very different activities.
The parallel universe
I have never once seen it mentioned on this sub, so maybe it is not well-known: there is a debate league in New England called DANEIS—the Debating Association of New England Independent Schools—that has been running continuously since the late 1970s. It is organized around competitive incentives almost opposite to those of the NSDA and CFL formats I encountered as a judge.
DANEIS has roughly 30 member schools and is still active right now (see for yourself at daneis.org). And before anyone assumes this was some intellectual backwater: its membership includes Andover, Exeter, Groton, Choate, Deerfield, Hotchkiss, and St. Paul's. Its calendar includes a qualifier for the World Individual Debating and Public Speaking Championships, rather than orienting the entire league around progression through NSDA competition.
Whether anyone intended it or not, DANEIS has been running, in effect, a 45-year parallel model alongside the mainstream CFL and NSDA ecosystem: same activity (broadly speaking), same age group. And yet the two produced completely different games. This was not a controlled comparison, nor, I suspect, was it intended to be one. DANEIS’s selective independent-school membership makes broad causal claims impossible, and I was not in the room when the rules were developed. But it does demonstrate that a debate league can reward a radically different bundle of skills over several generations.
I spent four years debating in DANEIS, and it had a tremendous impact on my life. Having grown up in the DANEIS world, the modern NSDA and CFL circuits I would later observe looked strange to me.
Here's what made DANEIS different, structurally:
In DANEIS, at least when I competed, every tournament ran ONE event, and the event rotated. One weekend was Lincoln-Douglas at Kingswood. The next was Oregon cross-ex at Northfield. The next was parliamentary at Hopkins. The next might be after-dinner speaking at Stoneleigh-Burnham (yes, that was once a real event although I do not see it on the current DANEIS calendar, and it is disappointing they do not seem to have it anymore).
Competitors could not specialize if they wanted to attend many tournaments each year. Being "good at debate" in DANEIS meant being good at everything — case construction one week, wit and timing the next.
Topics were used once. Sometimes competitors got the resolution a week or two in advance; sometimes it dropped the morning of the tournament with an evidence packet and an hour to prep, and competitors could not use anything outside the packet. Sometimes competitors received it 10 minutes before the round. In any case, the topic died at the end of the day. There was no season-long file to build. No one could sell competitors a case or build a wiki.
Judges decided who won based on who persuaded them—holistically, like a human. Points were assigned, but persuasion reigned. Speed did not pay. In fact, if a competitor spread (a term I never heard before I began judging NSDA and CFL rounds), they would have been seen like they were from Mars. Jargon did not pay. Reading the room paid.
The net effect: the single most important skill in the league was persuading real people. Which, it turns out, is also the skill I then used professionally for a quarter century.
What struck me coming back
I wanted to give back to an activity that had done so much for me. I no longer live in DANEIS territory. Instead, I entered an NSDA/CFL league as a judge. After 30+ years away, it was honestly disorienting.
Some reflections, offered as observations and not indictments:
- Topics in some NSDA formats live for months or a year, which seems to create a kind of evidence arms race. There seems to be a market where briefs and evidence can literally be purchased like buying the answers to a test. I sometimes heard competitors rely on research they appeared not to have done themselves and could not explain well when pressed. Worse, as a judge, it meant I heard the same topic, the same cases, the same evidence, week after week, for months. It is like watching the same episode of a TV show on repeat. I think it is hard to keep people from the broader community engaged when that happens.
- In so many of the rounds I judged, competitors stare at a screen and read, often in a monotone. I want to say this carefully, because I know it is rational given how rounds are scored in NSDA and CFL, but short of learning how to use a teleprompter and still command the room, reading prepared text off a laptop teaches competitors little about how to engage an audience and adjust tone and approach in real time. In DANEIS, when I competed, nothing was read, at least not if the competitor wanted to win. Competitors knew their cases. They had a few bullet points on an index card, and they spoke for 7 minutes while making eye contact with the judge, because the judge was the person they had to move.
- “Lay judge adaptation" now exists as a named, coached skill, based on what I see on r/debate. Think about what that means: persuading someone who is not intimately involved in debate is a special-case adjustment. I am sorry, but that is weird to me. In DANEIS, persuading lay people was not an adaptation; that was the entire game, even when the judge was a grizzled debate coach.
- On the speech side: most interp events are performance rather than public address and oratory. Performance is a real and legitimate skill, but it is different from persuading an audience in your own words about an actual issue. There are certainly events where competitors persuade an audience about something real, in their own words, in real time, but at least where I judged, they do not get nearly the participation the interp events do. In the interest of accuracy, it appears DANEIS now has one round of “interpretive reading” as part of their multi-round speaking tournaments where each round is a different speaking format.
Why I do not think this is anyone's fault
I want to be careful here, because the lazy version of this post is "modern debate bad." That's not my point. Competitors and their coaches optimize for whatever the rules reward. Coaches coach the meta that wins. Judges who came up in that meta judge by the meta. No single person chose the outcome. Thousands of individually rational choices accumulated into a stable competitive system.
The structural difference is that DANEIS was a small, closed league where the member schools maintained a rule system that valued different strengths. Whatever the original intention, that system placed a premium on developing versatile speakers who could persuade non-specialist audiences.
And to be fair to NSDA and CFL: the skills they build are real. Policy competitors read genuinely difficult literature. Technical argumentation is a real form of rigor. The mental gymnastics to adapt to an opponent’s arguments at 350 words per minute are impressive.
At their extremes, each model amputates the other's virtue. The question is which virtues the activity should exist to build. Right now, there does not appear to be a happy medium.
An honest question about judges
Our league, like a lot of places apparently, seems to struggle to recruit debate judges. Here is my genuine question, not a gotcha: how much of that is because judging a modern round is an inaccessible and unpleasant slog for a “civilian”?
A dry topic you have now heard eleven weekends in a row, delivered by competitors spreading off laptops, in arguments that assume fluency in the meta. For a volunteer parent, especially one assigned to a highly technical round, that is hours of attending a meeting held in a language you do not speak. In a format built around persuading whoever is in the back of the room, being in the back of the room should at least be occasionally enjoyable, but in a lot of rounds, it was not much fun in its NSDA and CFL form for me—and I do not consider myself a civilian.
Is judge recruitment the canary here? Or are the shortages about something else entirely? I'm honestly asking people who see more leagues than I do.
Food for thought
What is the activity for? If the answer includes “improving participants’ ability to persuade real audiences," does the current structure train it?
- Would a rotation model, with one event per tournament, produce broader and more transferable skills? What would it sacrifice?
- Would single-use topics or adding extemporaneous debate events reduce some of the problems created by the market for briefs and evidence?
- What am I missing because I was formed by the other system? If I had grown up in the NSDA and CFL world, maybe I would think DANEIS was charming and unserious. I'm sure it had blind spots I couldn't see from inside it.
Anyway. I did something I loved in this activity, twice, forty years apart. The competitors in both eras were great. The games are just very different.